Randy, thanks for sending this over. I will post my question here in-case it helps in any way or gets this moving up! So while attending the Repeal Day seminar, I got into some good discussions with some distillers and reps from distilleries. With a few of them, I brought up the fact that I had wondered why some of them upon first being opened, I didn't care for much? Yet, once the bottle was open and had seemed to have a chance to breath and I went back to it, I found I actually really liked it. These said bourbons/whiskies being drank neat. I threw out that I was wondering if I was just having an off pallet day. Both of the distillers that gave me pretty in-depth answers or their opinion on why this was, both stated something to the effect of that is one of the characteristics of a non-chill filtered process and that they are intended to do that. Has any of your research led you to come to this conclusion by any means?
No. This subject of fresh cracks and neck pours comes up A LOT. All scientific evidence points to a placebo effect. Whiskey does change in the bottle, but so slowly that you would have to wait years before chemical reactions took place that could be discernible. I do not fully understand the chemistry, but after my dusty video a discussion started in HBS that had actual chemical engineers explaining the chemical reactions. According to them the changes taking place do not even use oxygen (except some change to a protein that also required sun light) and the terms oxidation and oxidization are actually misnomers. We know there are countless things that effect your perception of flavor like mood, environment, expectation, etc. and it is much more likely that your palate and perception changed from one drinking session to the next than it is the whiskey changed.
Interesting. I had not head so low as 86 proof. I keep hearing 92 proof for international whiskeys. I was curious as to the reason why. Anyway, I relieved a memory when you explained how alcohol is a solvent. About 10 years ago, just before I got married, my then fiancée moved in with me. I came home from work one day lamenting about how a pen failed, coving my hand in black ink. I used some hand sanitizer to break up a majority of the ink. My wife had not see that before so I explained that alcohol is a solvent. And the fates would have it, less than a week later I left a pen in my jeans and when my wife did laundry, the pen bled all over my clothes. Thinking it a good idea, my wife poured half a bottle of Woodford into the washer, then was surprised when none of the ink came out.
Thanks for sharing your story! It's interesting how alcohol can have various effects depending on the situation. Regarding the proof of international whiskeys, it can vary depending on the country's regulations and traditions. For example, in Scotland, the minimum legal proof for whisky is 40% ABV (80 proof), while in the United States, it's 40% (80 proof) for straight whiskey and 30% (60 proof) for blended whiskey. Do you have any other questions or thoughts on the topic?
@BourbonRealTalk - oh, I meant minimal proof for non-chill filtered. I seem to recall hearing in whiskey tube that scotch and Irish whiskeys had to be at least 92 proof to be nonchill filtered and that Indian, Taiwanese, and Japanese whiskeys filled suit. I was surprised when I heard that lower proofs could be nonchill filtered.
@@Abby_Normal_1969 The distiller of Charbay said once in a video 95.8 proof, but I have heard numbers all over the place. It doesn't matter unless the whiskey gets cold. I suppose people could be using different proof points based on the typical temperatures they expect their bottles to be exposed to. I.E. if you ship to Canada you might have a different number than if you are a TX whiskey sold only in the state. I think that most major producers ship internationally so they want their bottles to be prepared for any weather, so the practice became universal.
I have been wondering about this. I wasn't surprised that if I searched your page I would find the answer. I would like to try 2 of the same bourbons each way to really see if a difference could be tasted. Have you ever been able to do that?
Yes with Weller Antique. Once was a single barrel so it wasn't exactly the same. All the studies I have seen show that the average person can not tell the difference. My theory is that the additional oil may hold the flavor compounds in place slightly longer which could affect the length of the finish, but not the flavor. That is just my theory and no science to back it up.
Such a great explanation. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
very well explained, i'm gonna have a drink. thanks
This was an old one. Glad you liked it!
All Ardbeg are non chill filtered and no color added as well.
Nice!
Randy, thanks for sending this over. I will post my question here in-case it helps in any way or gets this moving up! So while attending the Repeal Day seminar, I got into some good discussions with some distillers and reps from distilleries. With a few of them, I brought up the fact that I had wondered why some of them upon first being opened, I didn't care for much? Yet, once the bottle was open and had seemed to have a chance to breath and I went back to it, I found I actually really liked it. These said bourbons/whiskies being drank neat. I threw out that I was wondering if I was just having an off pallet day. Both of the distillers that gave me pretty in-depth answers or their opinion on why this was, both stated something to the effect of that is one of the characteristics of a non-chill filtered process and that they are intended to do that. Has any of your research led you to come to this conclusion by any means?
No. This subject of fresh cracks and neck pours comes up A LOT. All scientific evidence points to a placebo effect. Whiskey does change in the bottle, but so slowly that you would have to wait years before chemical reactions took place that could be discernible. I do not fully understand the chemistry, but after my dusty video a discussion started in HBS that had actual chemical engineers explaining the chemical reactions. According to them the changes taking place do not even use oxygen (except some change to a protein that also required sun light) and the terms oxidation and oxidization are actually misnomers. We know there are countless things that effect your perception of flavor like mood, environment, expectation, etc. and it is much more likely that your palate and perception changed from one drinking session to the next than it is the whiskey changed.
Interesting. I had not head so low as 86 proof. I keep hearing 92 proof for international whiskeys. I was curious as to the reason why. Anyway, I relieved a memory when you explained how alcohol is a solvent. About 10 years ago, just before I got married, my then fiancée moved in with me. I came home from work one day lamenting about how a pen failed, coving my hand in black ink. I used some hand sanitizer to break up a majority of the ink. My wife had not see that before so I explained that alcohol is a solvent. And the fates would have it, less than a week later I left a pen in my jeans and when my wife did laundry, the pen bled all over my clothes. Thinking it a good idea, my wife poured half a bottle of Woodford into the washer, then was surprised when none of the ink came out.
Thanks for sharing your story! It's interesting how alcohol can have various effects depending on the situation. Regarding the proof of international whiskeys, it can vary depending on the country's regulations and traditions. For example, in Scotland, the minimum legal proof for whisky is 40% ABV (80 proof), while in the United States, it's 40% (80 proof) for straight whiskey and 30% (60 proof) for blended whiskey. Do you have any other questions or thoughts on the topic?
@BourbonRealTalk - oh, I meant minimal proof for non-chill filtered. I seem to recall hearing in whiskey tube that scotch and Irish whiskeys had to be at least 92 proof to be nonchill filtered and that Indian, Taiwanese, and Japanese whiskeys filled suit. I was surprised when I heard that lower proofs could be nonchill filtered.
@@Abby_Normal_1969 The distiller of Charbay said once in a video 95.8 proof, but I have heard numbers all over the place. It doesn't matter unless the whiskey gets cold. I suppose people could be using different proof points based on the typical temperatures they expect their bottles to be exposed to. I.E. if you ship to Canada you might have a different number than if you are a TX whiskey sold only in the state. I think that most major producers ship internationally so they want their bottles to be prepared for any weather, so the practice became universal.
I have been wondering about this. I wasn't surprised that if I searched your page I would find the answer. I would like to try 2 of the same bourbons each way to really see if a difference could be tasted. Have you ever been able to do that?
Yes with Weller Antique. Once was a single barrel so it wasn't exactly the same. All the studies I have seen show that the average person can not tell the difference. My theory is that the additional oil may hold the flavor compounds in place slightly longer which could affect the length of the finish, but not the flavor. That is just my theory and no science to back it up.
Personally would love to see WT go NCF on RB and 101 instead of just RR. Too many acronyms?
Me too